Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 125405, 8 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/125405

Research Article
CFD Analysis of the Effect of Elbow Radius on Pressure Drop in
Multiphase Flow
Quamrul H. Mazumder
Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Quamrul H. Mazumder, qmazumde@umflint.edu
Received 9 April 2012; Accepted 24 September 2012
Academic Editor: Aiguo Song
Copyright 2012 Quamrul H. Mazumder. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was performed in four dierent 90 degree elbows with air-water two-phase flows.
The inside diameters of the elbows were 6.35 mm and 12.7 mm with radius to diameter ratios (r/D) of 1.5 to 3. The pressure
drops at two dierent upstream and downstream locations were investigated using empirical, experimental, and computational
methods. The combination of three dierent air velocities, ranging from 15.24 to 45.72 m/sec, and nine dierent water velocities,
in the range of 0.110.0 m/s, was used in this study. CFD analysis was performed using the mixture model and a commercial code,
FLUENT. The comparison of CFD predictions with experimental data and empirical model outputs showed good agreement.

1. Introduction and Background

In most industrial processes, fluids are used as a medium for
material transport. A complete knowledge of the principles
that rule the phenomena involving fluids transportation
leads to more ecient and secure systems. However, in
many industries, such as petroleum, chemical, oil, and
gas industries, two-phase or multiphase flow is frequently
observed [1]. Multiphase flow is defined as the simultaneous
flow of several phases, with the simplest case being a twophase flow [2]. Compared to single-phase flow, the equations
associated with two-phase flow are very complex, due to the
presence of dierent flow patterns in gas-liquid systems [3].
A detailed discussion of two-phase flow phenomenon behavior is provided by Wallis [2]. The flow patterns observed in
horizontal flow are bubble, stratified, stratified wavy, slug,
and annular. In vertical flows, bubble, plug, slug (or churn),
annular, and wispy-annular flow patterns are present. Several
investigations have been reported to determine the friction
factor and pressure drops in horizontal [4] and vertical [5]
two-phase and multiphase flows [6]. The presence of the
two-phase flow typically produces an undesirable higherpressure drop in the piping components. In most industrial

installations, elbows are frequently used to direct the flow

and provide flexibility to the system [7]. Since these fittings
are also used to install instruments that monitor the main
parameters of the industrial process, it is important to have a
reliable way to evaluate the pressure drop in these elbows [8].
As the fluid flows through the bend, the curvature of bend
causes a centrifugal force; the centrifugal force is directed
toward the outer wall of the pipe from the momentary center
of the curvature. The combined presence of centrifugal force
and boundary layer at the wall produces the secondary flow,
organized, ideally, in two identical eddies. This secondary
flow is superimposed to the mainstream along the tube axis,
resulting in a helical shape streamline, flowing through the
bend [9].
One of the challenges with undesirable higher-pressure
drop is the diculty in determining a model for twophase flow through pipe components. Despite unsuccessful
attempts to develop an accurate model for two-phase flow
through pipe components, Chisholm [10] presented an
elementary model for prediction of two-phase flow in bends,
based on a liquid two-phase multiplier, for dierent pipe
diameters, r/D values, and flow rates. Detailed studies
of two-phase pressure loss have largely been confined to

2
the horizontal plane. Chenoweth and Martin [11] showed
that while the two-phase pressure drop around bends was
higher than in single-phase flow, it could be correlated
by an adoption of the Lockhart-Martinelli [12] model, a
model initially developed for straight pipe. The correlation
claimed to predict loss in bends and other pipe fittings.
Also, at high mass velocities, agreement was achieved with
the homogeneous model. Fitzsimmons [13] presented twophase pressure loss data for bend in terms of the equivalent
length and the ratio of the bend pressure loss to the straight
pipe frictional pressure gradient; the Lockhart-Martinelli
multiplier referred to the single-phase gas pressure loss in
the bend. The comparison against pressure drop in straight
pipe gave a poor correlation. Sekoda et al. also used a
two-phase multiplier, referred to as a single-phase liquid
pressure loss in the bend. The two-phase bend pressure
drop was found to be dependent on the r/D ratio, while
being independent of pipe diameters [14]. The main focus
of this paper is to investigate pressure drop for two-phase
air-water mixture flow in 90 degree vertical to horizontal
elbows. The first step is the prediction of the flow pattern,
and then proposing an associated method of calculating
the liquid holdup, which is used to determine the twophase friction factor. Comparative studies proved that these
models are inconsistently performed, as flow conditions
vary. Therefore, the selection of the most appropriate flow
correlation is very important in this study [15]. Reported
work on the orientation of the plane of the bend has
often given contrary results. Debold [16] claimed that the
horizontal bend, the horizontal to vertical upbend, and the
vertical down to horizontal bend all gave the same bend
pressure loss. However, a horizontal to vertical downbend
had a pressure drop that was 35% less. The correlation for
elevation was assumed to follow the homogeneous model
by Debold [16], but others, such as Alves [17], ignored
head pressure dierences entirely. Peshkin [18] reported
that horizontal to vertical downflow had about 10% more
bend pressure drop than the corresponding horizontal to
vertical upflow case. Kutateladze [19], by contrast, concluded
the direct opposite: that the horizontal to vertical upflow
bend created the greater pressure drop. Moujaes and Aekula
reported the eects of pressure drop on turning vanes in 90
degree duct elbows, using CFD models in HVAC applications
area [20]. Due to the dierent approaches that can be used to
predict pressure drop in elbows, the current study uses CFD
analysis in four dierent elbows. The CFD analysis results
were validated using two dierent empirical models by Azzi
and Friedel [9] and Chisholm, [10] as well as experimental
data.

2. The CFD Approach

Due to the advancements in computer hardware and software in recent years, the computational fluid dynamics technique has been a powerful and eective tool to understand
the complex hydrodynamics of gas-liquid two-phase flows.
The commercial CFD package, FLUENT, was used to model
the air-water flow, in order to predict pressure drop in 90
degree elbows.

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Table 1: Configurations of elbows used in the study.

Elbow 1
Elbow 2
Elbow 3
Elbow 4

Pipe diameter,
D (mm)
12.7
12.7
6.35
6.35

Elbow curvature
radius, r (mm)
38.1
19.05
19.05
9.525

Equivalent pipe
length, Le (mm)
635
571.5
317.5
285.75

Figure 1: Elbow mesh with inlet domain.

3. Geometry Details
To conduct this study, four three-dimensional 90 degree
vertical to horizontal elbows were created using GAMBIT.
The geometries were then imported to FLUENT to simulate
pressure drop. Table 1 lists the pipe diameter (D), elbow
curvature radius (r), and equivalent pipe length (Le), for
dierent elbows.
The r/D ratio of 1.5 to 3 was used to represent the
standard short- and long-radius elbows. A straight pipe
section of 4550 times the pipe diameter was added at both
upstream and downstream of the elbow. The Le/D ratio for
single-phase flow is typically 10. However, for the two-phase
flow, an Le/D of approximately 100150 is required for fully
developed flow [21]. Due to limitations of the experimental
test system, the Le/D ratio used in this study was 50 for
elbows 1 and 3, while the ratio was 45 for elbows 2 and
4. Structured mesh was used with the optimum number
of nodes. A mesh independency study was performed to
determine reasonable results that are independent of the size
of the grid. Hexahedral mesh was used, due to its capabilities
in providing high-quality solution, with a fewer number of
cells than comparable tetrahedral mesh for simple geometry
[22]. Figure 1 shows the elbow and inlet domain of threedimensional mesh for elbow 1.
Table 2 lists the mesh details for each elbow, generated in
GAMBIT, to be used in this study. CFD Analysis results at
four dierent locations in the upstream and the downstream
of the elbow were used in this study, as shown in Figure 2.

4. Multiphase Modeling
The numerical calculations of multiphase flows can be calculated through two approaches: the Euler-Euler approach
and the Euler-Lagrange approach. Using the Euler-Euler
approach is more ecient, because the dierent phases are

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Elbow 1
Elbow 2
Elbow 3
Elbow 4

Table 2: Mesh details of all four elbows.

Location 4

Number of
nodes
110,558
97,520
21,484
18,942

Number of wall
faces
33,344
29,408
8,368
7,376

Number of
hexahedral cells
92,738
81,791
16,736
14,752

treated mathematically, as interpenetrating continua. The

concept of phasic volume fraction is used in this approach,
since the volume of phase cannot be occupied by the other
phases. These volume fractions are assumed to be continuous
functions of space and time, and their sum is equal to one.
For each phase, conservation equations are derived to obtain
a set of new equations which have similar structure for all
phases. By providing constitutive relations obtained from
the empirical information, these sets of equations are closed.
There are three available Euler-Euler multiphase models in
the fluent commercial code: the Eulerian model, the mixture
model, and the volume of fluid model. In this study, the
mixture model is used, as it is relatively easy to understand
for multiphase modeling.

Location 3

Location 1

Figure 2: Locations of CFD and experimental data.

where the mass-averaged velocity (vm ) is

n

vm =

5. Mixture Model Theory

The mixture model can be used to model multiphase flows,
by assuming the local equilibrium over short spatial length
scales, and where the phases move at dierent velocities. In
addition, the mixture model can be used to calculate nonNewtonian viscosity. It can model a number of phases by
solving the momentum, continuity, and energy equations for
the mixture, the volume fraction equation for the secondary
phases, and algebraic expression for the relative velocities.
The mixture model is a good substitute for the full Eulerian
multiphase model in several cases, as the full multiphase
model may not be feasible, due to the wide distribution of
a particular phase, when the interphase laws are unknown,
or when the reliability of interphase laws is questioned.
While solving a smaller number of variables than the full
multiphase model, the mixture model can perform as well
as the full multiphase model. It uses a single-fluid approach,
just like the volume of fluid model but allows for the phases
to be interpenetrating and for the phases to move at the
dierent velocities, using the concept of slip velocities.



 
m + m vm = 0,
t

(1)

k=1 k k v k

(2)

and the mixture density (m ) is given by

m =

n


k k ,

(3)

k=1

where k is volume fraction of phase k.

By adding the individual momentum equations for all
phases, the mixtures final momentum equation can be
obtained, and it is given by




m vm + m vm vm
t


 
= p + m v m + v Tm

+ m g + F +

n


(4)

k k vdr,k vdr,k ,

k=1

where F is the body force, n is the number of phases, and m

is the viscosity of the mixture:

6. Mathematical Formulation
The mixture models solve the continuity equation, momentum equation, energy equation, the volume fraction equation
for the secondary phases, and the algebraic expression for
the relative velocities, since the two phases are moving at
dierent velocities. The continuity, momentum, and relative
velocity equations used in the mixture model are shown in
the following section.
The mixtures continuity equation is given by

Location 2

m =

n


k k ,

(5)

k=1

where vdr,k is the drift velocity for the secondary phase k:

vdr,k = vk vm .

(6)

The relative velocity, or the slip velocity, is defined as the

velocity of a secondary phase (p), relative to the velocity of
the primary phase (q), and can be given by
v pq = v p v q .

(7)

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

The mass fraction for any phase (k) is defined as

k k
.
m

ck =

(8)

The drift velocity and the relative velocity (v pq ) are connected

by the following expression:
vdr,p = v pq

n


ck v qk .

(9)

k=1

The algebraic slip formulation is used in the FLUENTs

mixture model. Prescribing an algebraic relation for the
relative velocity, a local equilibrium between phases should
be reached over short spatial length scale, according to the
basic assumption of the algebraic slip mixture model. The
relative velocity then is given by


v pq

p p m
=
a,
fdrag
p

(10)

where the particle relaxation time ( p ) is given by

p =

p d2p
,
18q

(11)

d is the diameter of the particles (or droplets or bubbles)

of secondary phase, and a is the secondary-phase particles
acceleration. The default drag function fdrag is taken from
Schiller and Naumann [19]:


fdrag =

1 + 0.15 Re0.687
0.0183 Re

Re 1000
Re > 1000,

(12)

and the acceleration a is of the form

a = g (vm ) vm

vm
a.
t

(13)

In the drift flux model, the acceleration of the particle is

given by gravity and/or a centrifugal force, and, in order
to take into account the presence of other particles, the
particulate relaxation time is modified. In turbulent flows,
the relative velocity should contain a diusion term, due to
the dispersion appearing in the momentum equation for the
dispersed phase. FLUENT adds this dispersion to the relative
velocity:


v pq =

p m d2p
18q fdrag

vm
q ,
p D

(14)

where (vm ) is the mixture turbulent viscosity, and (D ) is the

Prandtl dispersion coecient.

7. Modeling Assumptions
A straight pipe section was extended at the inlet and outlet
boundary to evaluate the pressure drop across each elbow.
In order to ensure fully developed flow, appropriate Le/D
ratio was used to calculate the length of the straight section.

The standard k- model, with wall functions, was used in

this study, since it is the simplest of the complete models
available in FLUENT. The model constants used for this
analysis were C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, C = 0.09,
k = 1.0, and  = 1.3. For the mixture parameters,
slip velocity was taken into consideration, as the phases
had a significant dierence in velocities, while the noslip boundary conditions were assumed for the wall of
tubing. Due to the complex behavior of the two-phase
flow, solution strategies were followed to improve the
accuracy and convergence of the solution. The mixture
calculation was initialized with a low under relaxation factor
of 0.2 for the slip velocity; calculations were performed
by combinations of the SIMPLE pressure-velocity coupling.
The first-order upwind discretization scheme was used for
the momentum, volume fraction, turbulent kinetic energy,
and turbulent dissipation rate. The convergence criterion
was based on the residual values of the calculated variables,
to ensure satisfactory accuracy, stability, and convergence.
The governing equations were solved sequentially, separate
from one another, requiring less memory in comparison
with the coupled algorithm. SIMPLE uses the pressure-based
segregated algorithm, which makes use of the relationship
between the velocity and pressure corrections, to enforce
mass conservation, and to obtain the pressure field.

8. CFD Analysis
CFD analysis was performed on four dierent elbows, at nine
dierent water and air velocities. Thus, a total of twentyseven dierent combinations of water and air velocities were
used in the study, for each elbow. Each of these conditions
was analyzed in CFD in order to accurately predict the
eect of varying the pipe diameter and r/D ratios. Due
to the limitation of the test loop system, experimental
investigations could not be performed for all of these
conditions. Table 3 lists all the flow conditions that were used
in the pressure loss CFD analysis. Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
Table 3 represent elbows 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
Cross-sectional absolute pressure and radial velocity
contours are presented in Figure 3. The left side of Figure 3
shows the radial velocity contours in four locations of elbow
1 at a water velocity of 0.1 m/s and air velocities of 15.24,
30.48, and 45.72 m/s, respectively. Location 1 represents the
inlet of the upstream pipe, while location 2 indicates the
outlet of the upstream pipe and inlet of the elbow. Similarly,
location 3 indicates the outlet of elbow and inlet of the
downstream pipe, and location 4 indicates the outlet of the
downstream pipe. The top part of each individual contour
represents the inside wall, while the bottom part of the
contour represents the outer wall of the elbow. The contour
maps were collected to locate, and study, any patterns that
were formed. As depicted in Figure 3, the secondary flow
pattern can be observed at the exit of the elbow section. The
right side of Figure 3 shows the absolute pressure profiles in
the four locations of elbow 1 at a water velocity of 0.1 m/s,
and air velocities of 15.24, 30.48, and 45.72 m/s, respectively.
The pressure distribution is dispersed without forming any
regular pattern.

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Table 3: Flow conditions used in CFD analysis.

Air velocity, (m/sec)
15.24
30.48
45.72

0.1
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4

0.5
1,2
1,2
1,2

1.0
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4

1.3
1,2
1,2
1,2

Water velocity, (m/sec)

2.0
2.5
1,2,3,4
1,2
1,2,3,4
1,2
1,2,3,4
1,2

5.0
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4

7.5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4

10.0
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4

Air: 15.24 m/s

Radial velocity
Air: 30.48 m/s

Air: 45.72 m/s

Air: 15.24 m/s

vmax : 0.1 m/s

vmax : 0.1 m/s

vmax : 0.1 m/s

P max : 97.26 kPa

Pmax : 105.62 kPa

Pmax : 97.5 kPa

vmax : 0.48 m/s

vmax : 1.87 m/s

vmax : 1.2 m/s

Pmax : 100.98 kPa

Pmax : 101.79 kPa

Pmax :101.14 kPa

vmax : 0.44 m/s

vmax : 1.72 m/s

vmax : 1.1 m/s

Pmax : 101.41 kPa

Pmax : 101.34 kPa

Pmax : 101.52 kPa

vmax : 1.2 m/s

Pmax : 101.23 kPa

Pmax : 100.97 kPa

Pmax : 100.62 kPa

Absolute pressure
Air: 30.48 m/s

Air: 45.72 m/s

vmax : 1.87 m/s

vmax : 0.48 m/s

Figure 3: CFD-predicted velocity and pressures in elbow1 at water 0.1 m/s.

9. Pressure Drop Calculations with

Empirical Models

Considering that only liquid phase fills up the pipe, the twophase flow mixture pressure drop is evaluated as

9.1. Chisholm Model. Chisholm proposed a correlation that

involves the dimensionless parameters obtained by correlating two-phase flow experimental data [10]. It also requires an
equivalent pipe length Le that depends on the elbow radius to
the pipe diameter ratio (r/D), as well as the angle of the elbow
bend [23]. The increment of Le as a function of r/D is mainly
due to friction, centrifugal force, and the secondary flow that
is present in the elbows. Thus, the single-phase pressure drop
in the elbow is
P1ph = f

2

G Le
.
2 D

(15)

Chisholm suggested evaluating the pressure drop coecient

kl , by assuming that the whole two-phase flow mixture flows
as liquid only through the pipe fitting, as expressed by


Le
kl = fl
.
D

(16)

P1ph,l =

kl G2T
.
2l

(17)

Therefore, pressure drop in a two-phase mixture flowing

through a 90 elbow is given by an equation that already
includes the mass quality, and a correlation factor, for twophase properties:




P2ph = P1ph,l 1 + E(x(1 x)) + x2 ,

(18)

where E is 90 elbow coecient, which includes the relative

radius of the elbow
E =1+

2.2
.
kl (2 + (r/D))

(19)

9.2. Azzi-Friedel Model. According to this model, the pressure drop is based on the two-phase flow multiplier, defined
as the ratio of the bend pressure loss in two-phase flow, and

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Elbow 1
Elbow 2
Elbow 3
Air flow
rotameter

Elbow 4

Air
compressor
Water
storage
tank

Liquid flow
rotameter

Figure 4: Schematic of the experimental test system.

that in the single-phase liquid flow with the same total mass
flow rate as in [9]:
P2ph
,
P1ph,l

2 =

(20)

The two-phase flow multiplier, defined by Azzi and

Friedel, is given by
2 = C + 7.42Fr l 0.125


where P1ph,l is the pressure drop of single-phase liquid fluid,

across the same bend, defined as

l g

r 0.502 0.7
x (1 x)0.1
D

 0.14 

G2
P1ph,l = ki l ,
2l

(21)

C = (1 x) +

l g
l

 0.12

(25)

l kg 2
x .
g kl

Froude number (Fr l ) is

where


ki = fi

Le
,
D

(22)

where Le/D is the dimensionless, single-phase equivalent

length, and fi is the single-phase flow pipe friction factor.
According to Churchill [24], this factor can be calculated by
using the following equation:


fi = 8

8
Re

1/12

12

+ (Ai + Bi )

1.5

(23)

where

Ai = 2.457 ln



7
Rei

0.9

37530
Bi =
Rei
Rei =

+ 0.27
D
16

1 16
,

(24)

i Vi D
.
i

Subscript i in the above equations can be used for either

liquid or gas.

Fr l =

1 x2 G2T
.
l 2 rg

(26)

10. Experimental Investigation

To validate the CFD simulation and empirical model results,
a multiphase air-water test system was designed and developed. Two dierent 12.7 mm and two dierent 6.35 mm test
sections were used to conduct the pressure drop experiments.
The major dierence between each test section is the flow
development length upstream of the test section, pipe
diameter, and elbow radius to pipe diameter ratio. Figure 4
shows the schematic of the test loop, consisting of a 30-gallon
water tank, a 25 HP pump, a 10 CFM air compressor, liquid
and gas flow meters, four vertical to horizontal 90 elbows
with two dierent pipe diameters and r/D ratios, inlet and
outlet pressure gauges, and four dierential pressure gauges.
Air from the compressor enters the test loop, through a gate
valve and air flow meter, that is used to control the air flow
rates. Water from the tank is pumped into the test section,
through a gate valve and liquid flow meter, that is used
to control the water flow rates. Water is injected into the
air stream through a T elbow, and the mixture then flows
through a straight section of 12.7 mm pipe section to the
elbows. Ball valves are used to allow the mixture to enter a
specific elbow and return the water to tank. The 12.7 mm and

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

7
pressure contour maps were presented for characteristic flow
behaviors in multiphase flows.

Calculated and experimental

pressure drop (kPa)

1000
100

Nomenclature

10

English Letters

1
0.1
0.01
0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

CFD-predicted pressure drop (kPa)

E-1 Chisholm
E-1 Azzi
E-1 Experiment
E-2 Chisholm
E-2 Azzi
E-2 Experiment

E-3 Chisholm
E-3 Azzi
E-3 Experiment
E-4 Chisholm
E-4 Azzi
E-4 Experiment

Figure 5: Comparison of CFD versus calculated and experimental

pressure drop.

6.35 mm transparent sections of plexiglass pipe are used for

multiphase flow pattern visualization. The pressure drop was
measured across each elbow, using the dierential pressure
gauges hooked up across the 90 degree elbows. After the test
sections, the mixture flows downstream, into the water tank,
where the mixture is separated. The air is released back into
the environment, while the water is recycled.

11. Comparison of CFD Results with

Experimental and Empirical Results
Figure 5 shows the plot of CFD-predicted pressure drop
versus two empirical and experimental pressure drop data for
all elbows. The linear line shown in Figure 5 depicts a perfect
line. The data above the line is overpredicted results, while
the data below the line is underpredicted results. The data
lying near the line shows perfect agreement. In all conditions,
CFD underpredicted the pressure drop values. Azzi and
Friedel, Chisholm, and the experiment overpredicted the
pressure drop. However, for elbows 1 and 2, Azzi-Friedels
model underpredicted the pressure drop. On the same token,
Chisholm model significantly over predicted the pressure
drop for elbows 1, 2 and 3, which can be seen in Figure 5.
For both empirical models, the prediction for elbows 3 and 4
was closer to the perfect agreement line.

12. Summary and Conclusion

CFD analysis of two-phase flow in a 6.35, and 12.7 mm
pipe diameter with r/D ratio of 1.5 and 3 was performed
using commercially available CFD code FLUENT. Analysis
was performed for three dierent air velocities between
15.24, 30.48, and 45.72 m/s and six dierent water velocities,
ranging from 0.1 to 10.0 m/s, in each of the four elbows.
Pressure drop profiles and their respective cross-sectional

1-x:
A:
a:
B:
C:
D:
E:
f:
F:
Fr:
G:
g:
K:
Le/D:
r:
r/D:
Re:
v:
x:
P:

Wetness fraction/liquid quality

Coecient 1 of pipe friction factor
Acceleration
Coecient 2 of pipe friction factor
Coecient of two-phase multiplier
Inner pipe diameter
Chisholm coecient
Friction factor for pipe
Force
Froude number
Mass flux
Gravitational acceleration
Friction factor for bend
Equivalent pipe length to pipe diameter ratio
Elbow curvature radius
Elbow curvature radius to pipe diameter ratio
Reynolds number
Velocity
Dryness fraction/gas quality
Two-phase pressure drop.

Greek Letters
:
:
/D:
:
:
:
2 :

Dynamic viscosity
Volume fraction
Equivalent roughness to pipe diameter ratio
Density
Prandtl coecient
Relaxation time
Two-phase multiplier.

Subscripts
1ph:
2ph:
d:
dr:
drag:
e:
g:
i:
k:
l:
m:
p:
pq:
q:
T:
t:

Single-phase flow
Two-phase flow
Dispersion
Drift
Drag force
Equivalent
Gas phase
Subscript for either liquid or gas phase
Any phase
Liquid phase
Mixture
Secondary phase
Relative phase
Primary phase
Total
Time.

References
[1] S. F. Sanchez, R. J. C. Luna, M. I. Carvajal, and E. Tolentino:,
Pressure drop models evaluation for two-phase flow in 90
degree horizontal elbows, Ingenieria Mecanica Techilogia Y
Desarrollo, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 115122, 2010.
[2] G. B. Wallis, One Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill,
1969.
[3] S. Benbella, M. Al-Shannag, and Z. A. Al-Anber, Gasliquid pressure drop in vertical internally wavy 90 bend,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 33, no. 2, pp.
340347, 2009.
[4] J. S. Cole, G. F. Donnelly, and P. L. Spedding, Friction factors
in two phase horizontal pipe flow, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 909917,
2004.
[5] S. Wongwises and W. Kongkiatwanitch, Interfacial friction
factor in vertical upward gas-liquid annular two-phase flow,
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.
28, no. 3, pp. 323336, 2001.
[6] P. L. Spedding, E. Benard, and G. F. Donnelly, Prediction of
pressure drop in multiphase horizontal pipe flow, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 33, no.
9, pp. 10531062, 2006.
[7] J. Hernandez Ruz, Estudio del comportamiento de flujo de
fluidos en tuberas curvas para plicaciones en metrologa [Tesis
de Maestra], IPN-ESIME, 1998.
[8] A. M. Chan, K. J. Maynard, J. Ramundi, and E. Wiklund,
Qualifying elbow meters for high pressure flow measurements in an operating nuclear power plant, in Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering
(ICONE 06), Miami, Fla, USA, July 2006.
[9] A. Azzi and L. Friedel, Two-phase upward flow 90 bend pressure loss model, Forschung im Ingenieurwesen, vol. 69, no. 2,
pp. 120130, 2005.
[10] D. Chisholm, Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines and Heat Exchangers, Godwin, 1983.
[11] J. M. Chenoweth and M. W. Martin, Turbulent two-phase
flow, Petroleum Refiner, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 151155, 1955.
[12] R. W. Lockhart and R. C. Martinelli, Proposed correlation of
data for isothermal two-phase two-component flow in pipes,
Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 3948, 1949.
[13] P. E. Fitzsimmons, Two phase pressure drop in pipe components, Tech. Rep. HW-80970 Rev 1, General Electric Research,
1964.
[14] K. Sekoda, Y. Sato, and S. Kariya, Horizontal two-phase airwater flow characteristics in the disturbed region due to a 90degree bend, Japan Society Mechanical Engineering, vol. 35,
no. 289, pp. 22272333, 1969.
[15] A. Asghar, R. Masoud, S. Jafar, and A. A. Ammar, CFD
and artificial neural network modeling of two-phase flow
pressure drop, International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 850856, 2009.
[16] T. L. Deobold, An experimental investigation of two-phase
pressure losses in pipe elbows, Tech. Rep. HW-SA, 2564, MSc.
University of Idaho, Chemical Engineering, 1962.
[17] G. E. Alves, Co-current liquid-gas flow in a pipe-line
contactor, Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 50, no. 9, pp.
449456, 1954.
[18] M. A. Peshkin, About the hydraulic resistance of pipe bends
to the flow of gas-liquid mixtures, Teploenergetika, vol. 8, no.
6, pp. 7980, 1961.
[19] S. S. Kutateladze, Problems of Heat Transfer and Hydraulics of
Two-Phase Media, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

[20] S. F. Moujaes and S. Aekula, CFD predictions and experimental comparisons of pressure drop eects of turning vanes in 90
duct elbows, Journal of Energy Engineering, vol. 135, no. 4, pp.
119126, 2009.
[21] Q. H. Mazumder, S. A. Shirazi, and B. S. McLaury, Prediction
of solid particle erosive wear of elbows in multiphase annular
flow-model development and experimental validation, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, vol. 130, no. 2, Article ID
023001, 10 pages, 2008.
[22] I. Fluent, Fluent 6. 3 User Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH,
USA, 2002.
[23] N. P. Cheremisino, Ed., Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics: Gas
Liquid Flows, vol. 3, Gulf Publishing Company, 1986.
[24] S. W. Churchill, Friction equation spans all fluid flow
regimes, Chemical Engineering, vol. 84, no. 24, pp. 9192,
1977.

International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

The Scientific
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Engineering
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Advances in

Mechanical
Engineering

Journal of

Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

International Journal of

Distributed
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Advances in

Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Advances in
OptoElectronics

Journal of

Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Volume 2014

VLSI Design

Modelling &
Simulation
in Engineering

International Journal of

Navigation and
Observation

International Journal of

Chemical Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Advances in

Acoustics and Vibration

Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Active and Passive

Electronic Components
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

International Journal of

Journal of

Antennas and
Propagation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer

Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014